Judge Dismisses Cheri Jacobus “Dummy” Lawsuit Against Trump…

cheri-jacobus-1NEW YORK (AP) — Donald Trump can keep his Twitter insults flying. In a decision made public Tuesday, a New York judge dismissed a lawsuit filed last year against the Republican president-elect by a political strategist who said her reputation was trashed when he called her a “dummy” on Twitter.

Trump’s tweets might be “rife with vague and simplistic insults,” and the barbs he aimed at Republican public relations consultant Cheri Jacobus might have been hurtful, but they were still protected free speech, Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Barbara Jaffe ruled.

The case has its roots in a February appearance Jacobus made on CNN in which she said Trump’s presidential campaign had not been transparent about its financing.

Trump retaliated in a tweet that night. Trump tweeted that Jacobus had “begged us for a job. We said no and she went hostile,” calling her “a real dummy.” Days later he tweeted that she was a “major loser, zero credibility!”

Jacobus filed a $4 million lawsuit, saying Trump’s online attacks had cost her TV appearances and inspired bullying from Trump supporters.

In her 20-page opinion, signed Monday, Jaffe wrote that although Trump’s “intemperate tweets are clearly intended to belittle and demean plaintiff,” they wouldn’t prevent her from working as a consultant and political commentator.

Jacobus’ lawyer, Jay Butterman, vowed to appeal the decision. He said the ruling had effectively given “now President-elect Donald Trump a free pass to trample on the free speech rights of any critic.”

Larry Rosen, Trump’s attorney, called Jaffe’s decision “well-reasoned.” A transition spokeswoman didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Jacobus had previously had two meetings with then-Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski in the summer of 2015 about a possible job with the campaign. And though no job offer was ever made, both Trump and Lewandowski publicly attributed Jacobus’ criticisms to her lack of employment with the campaign.

In her decision, Jaffe ruled that whether Jacobus “begged” Trump for a job was subjective and not an objective fact.

Because it followed her own public criticisms of Trump, Jaffe ruled, the context of the exchange “signals to readers that plaintiff and Trump were engaged in a petty quarrel.” (read more)


This entry was posted in 1st Amendment, Donald Trump, Election 2016, media bias, Notorious Liars, Professional Idiots, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

128 Responses to Judge Dismisses Cheri Jacobus “Dummy” Lawsuit Against Trump…

  1. Kevin Sherlock says:

    She’s a pissant.

    Liked by 12 people

  2. txjohn says:

    She started a fight she couldn’t afford to lose.
    Loser. Dummy.
    Trump was right.

    Liked by 23 people

  3. LOL!! Liberals take not: Truth hurts and can result in snowflake melting

    Liked by 11 people

  4. rsanchez1990 says:

    She trashed her own reputation, Trump just calls them as he sees them.

    Liked by 23 people

  5. Peter says:


    Liked by 11 people

  6. freepetta says:

    If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, chances are it’s a duck. Always thought Cheri Jacobus was a dummy. Always was hard to tell whose side she was on.

    Liked by 7 people

  7. Jack says:

    It’s so against type for someone like (((Cheri Jacobus))) to use the courts to try get her pound of flesh against a goy who fought back. Oy vey, what is this world coming to….

    Liked by 1 person

  8. sunnydaze says:

    I’m thinking that if she really lost work because of those ridiculous Trump tweets, it must’ve been cuz she really is a dummy and a loser.

    Liked by 19 people

    • Sandhill says:

      Great point. In certain circles, like CNN, she would have been an instant heroine for being negatively twitted about from Trump.Yep not too smart to not turn that golden opportunity that Trump’s twit gave her into a very lucrative career.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. RedBallExpress says:

    What goes around comes around.

    Liked by 3 people

  10. Chance says:

    Jacobus’ lawyer, Jay Butterman said, “now President-elect Donald Trump [has] a free pass to trample on the free speech rights of any critic.”

    Actually, you’re the ones trying to stifle Mr. Trump’s free speech rights, nimrod!

    Your client is still ‘free’ to say whatever she wants, so you’re argument is not only specious, but just plain stupid.

    Leftist thought truly is a mental disorder!!!

    Liked by 22 people

    • Pam says:

      That’s exactly the way I see it. When the voters when to the ballot box in November, they knew Trump used twitter frequently but that didn’t factor into an individual voters decision. They wanted someone who could lead for a change. For the first time in a long time, we will have our freedom of speech back thanks to Trump!

      Liked by 9 people

    • mw says:

      So true! Laughed out loud when I read that. These snowflakes are so weak they consider any criticism as ‘stifling’ them. Guess she wanted a participation trophy!

      Liked by 4 people

  11. ECM says:

    Jacobus’ lawyer, Jay Butterman, vowed to appeal the decision. He said the ruling had effectively given “now President-elect Donald Trump a free pass to trample on the free speech rights of any critic.”

    So, if I have this right, it’s OK to trample on his free speech rights? Is that about right? That you aren’t allowed to criticize your critics? Because reasons?

    Liked by 21 people

  12. hpushkin says:

    She didn’t get $4 million for suing, being a dummy and not getting a job with the campaign, twice. And since she’s in P.R., she’s been a real dummy about her own P.R. Her lawyer got paid though. He’s no dummy.

    Liked by 15 people

  13. adoubledot says:

    So the SJW attorney Buttercup says one tweet forever “tramples” her right to speak freely. Sorry Buttercup, your shakedown failed.

    Liked by 6 people

  14. 804hokie says:

    The win streak continues! Those strategists and consultants are overpaid for delivering too many electoral defeats; glad Trump bucked that trend by leveling with the voters

    Liked by 12 people

  15. muffyroberts says:

    She is obviously a dummy if she thought she could win this dumb lawsuit.

    Liked by 9 people

  16. bluejean says:

    She’s Republican?

    Liked by 1 person

  17. SteveInCO says:

    Speaking of lawsuits, what happened to the twelve accusers who magically held off until the campaign, that Trump was threatening to sue?

    Liked by 5 people

  18. Charles says:

    He said the ruling had effectively given “now President-elect Donald Trump a free pass to trample on the free speech rights of any critic.”

    BS. Free speech is not a guarantee to extract payment from someone else to give you a platform for what you want to say. If they don’t want to pay for your opinons, because we don’t want to pay them to hear your opinions, find your own outlet, start a blog, hand out tracts, spin a sandwich board.

    Our friends, relatives and ancestors already died for your right to say what you want, but don’t expect to force the rest of us who disagree with you to reimburse your speaking/writing fees.

    Insult Trump, insult me.

    Liked by 10 people

  19. boutis says:

    Do NOT pick fights that you have zero chance of winning. This was a nuisance lawsuit. She should have to pay Trump’s legal bill.

    Liked by 17 people

  20. I’m thinking we all need to start a $4 million lawsuit against Hillary Clinton because I know ever since she called me “deplorable” and “irredeemable” it has “cost [me] TV appearences and inspired bullying from [Hillary] supporters”! 😉

    Liked by 16 people

  21. hawkeye13 says:

    She likely knew it would get dismissed, she wanted out of court settlement.

    Liked by 3 people

  22. alliwantissometruth says:

    Trump Lesson # 27…

    I hit back. Unfairly target me with lies & distortions, you’ll be called out on it. I will not stand by quietly while my reputation is besmirched or lies about my Presidency, my organization or the people I hire are lodged


  23. Grace Anne says:

    And… the tweets will continue to fly!

    Liked by 5 people

  24. MrE says:

    Sounds to me like somebody has a bad case of the entitlements and didn’t get her way.

    Liked by 3 people

  25. big bad mike says:

    She’s from Peoria – worked for Bob Michel – remember him? – took a 10 week Campaign Management Program, became Campaign Manager for a Republican Congressional Rep (MD) Candidate, (1988) who lost a close election against long odds. But still lost. He did win 2 years later (1990) but she wasn’t his campaign manager then.

    Of course Trump should have hired her because of her vast experience. 1988 was only 28 years ago. And she did get a participation trophy. Plus she lost 4 Million in TV appearance money this election cycle. She would have been on all major networks – every day – really she would have.

    Liked by 5 people

  26. James23 says:

    He showed his teeth!

    Liked by 3 people

  27. DGinGA says:

    Let me make sure I understand: She criticizes Trump and his campaign on national TV and calls it “freedom of speech.” He then goes on social media, in this case Twitter, for an audience theoretically limited to his Twitter followers, and criticizes her, which one would think is Trump exercising his free speech rights. So she sues him for doing so, because she is ticked about what he tweeted about her. His intent is merely to dismiss her crticism of him and his campaign in a flip and possibly factual manner. Her intent is to use the legal system to shut him up AND to penalize him financially for his remarks. But her legal hook is that HE is infringing on HER right to freedom of speech? Seems to me the situation is quite the reverse, which is pretty typical of progressives.

    Liked by 12 people

  28. TwoLaine says:


    Liked by 7 people

  29. snaggletooths says:

    Awesome now once again people can be reminded that Cheri Jacobus is a special snowflake , Trump was right she is a dummy !

    Liked by 5 people

  30. Jay Edwards says:

    The judge is the cretin — using this transparently frivolous case to let loose with a stream of invective against Trump based on personal animus and her own political ideology.

    The duet should have been dismissed as frivolous and this loon compelled to pay any and all costs o Trump.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. filia.aurea says:

    Good. Let them appeal, just to confirm their stupidity.

    Liked by 4 people

  32. Carolyn says:

    I had to block her on Facebook, she was psychotic in her dislike for Trump.

    Liked by 2 people

  33. Athena the Warrior says:

    Cheri Jacobus was another battle that we PE Trump’s social media army was battling online. She attacked, lied about, and blocked numerous Trump supporters while teaming up with Never Trumpers to trash him.

    Justice prevails.

    Liked by 4 people

  34. Travis McGee says:

    It’s amazing how people who get criticized for criticizing think they are they only ones that have first amendment rights.

    Liked by 6 people

  35. emet says:

    Gosh. What a dummy.


  36. NHVoter says:

    This nutjob belongs in a padded room. She is the definition of unhinged.

    Liked by 4 people

  37. CountryclassVulgarian says:

    Did President Elect Trump just win…,again😂😂😂😂

    I hope they never learn. After the last eight we all deserve some good old ROTFLOBO!!!!!

    Liked by 6 people

  38. QuiteContrary says:

    I didn’t see this mentioned in the story about the judge’s ruling, but OPINION IS PROTECTED SPEECH as long as one doesn’t imply unstated facts that are false (“I believe he killed them, but I can’t tell you why”). This means that, since Jacobus did indeed seek a job with the campaign, the rest of Trump’s slam is protected as opinion (“begged” and “dummy”). She should have known this before filing. I’m not a First Amendment lawyer, but it seems to me that this suit was frivolous.

    It’s not true that this ruling gives Trump carte blanche to insult people on twitter. It seems to me that the ruling is within well-established First Amendment law.

    Liked by 4 people

  39. She thinks Trump critics should be immune from Trump’s criticism?

    Liked by 2 people

    • The Defiant One says:

      No, to put it simply, Liberals/Progressives believe Trump and the right shouldn’t fight back. No tit for tat.

      And by us fighting back the Liberals think it’s an unfair fight!

      Liked by 2 people

  40. MIKE says:

    Good-bye to this goldbrickin’ chicken!

    Liked by 1 person

  41. Michael says:

    She is a dummy. She’s triggered by a green cartoon frog. Yeah, she’s nuts.

    Liked by 3 people

  42. litlbit2 says:

    Honest decision, ” they wouldn’t prevent her from working as a consultant and political commentator.”
    For proof, take a romp through the MSM line up!

    Liked by 1 person

  43. SoCal Patriot says:

    Pretty simple here…she made a bet that DJT would not win the Republican nomination. It looked like an easy bet at the time she filed her lawsuit…she would take on Trump and when he dropped out of the primary, she would look like the badass who stood up to him and won. She was betting that her political consulting practice would take off at that point.

    Now…her career is in trouble…not a good move on her part.

    Liked by 5 people

  44. Bert Darrell says:

    It’s downright ridiculous to claim that she lost speaking/writing gigs because Trump referred to her as a dummy. I’m sure CNN or MSNBC would not have hesitated to invite a Trump-basher like her to a talk show if they thought that she had anything to say that their viewers would care about.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Another label that will stick “dummy” for Cheri Jacobus because she has proven she is a dummy with this lawsuit.

      She may get a few gigs on the tabloid gossip propaganda “shows” CNN & MSNBC but I think in the future not too many quality gigs will be offered to a dummy like her.

      As I’ve told her many times, before she blocked me 🙂 on Twitter; she really ought to get on HORMONE REPLACEMENT therapy. After menopause some women just go bananas. I used to think her Twitter was a parody account because the things she said about Trump were so outrageous, but found out she is a real person and really meant those things. She’s a lot like Glen Beck. Both hysterical dumb women.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Coldeadhands says:

        Ha! Did you just suggest that Glenn Beck would benefit from hormone replacement therapy?! Actually, he could really be severely hypothyroid. He’s got that bloated look and hypothyroid is not exclusive to women. (I always thought GB had gone off on the recovering alcoholic’s “dry drunk.”)


    • Major Styles says:

      True. You would think that she would get a tenured teaching position from the liberal left.


  45. Scarlet says:

    So, she can publicly criticize him….but he can’t publicly criticize her….hmmmmmmmm.

    Liked by 4 people

  46. indiana08 says:

    Trump didn’t lie when he called her a “dummy” and she proved him correct when she filed this ridiculous lawsuit.

    Liked by 4 people

  47. “now President-elect Donald Trump a free pass to trample on the free speech rights of any critic.”

    If you are my critic, you have free speech rights.
    But, if I am your critic I have no free speech rights.

    It’s this “Do as I say, not as I do” attitude I resent the most from the left.

    Liked by 2 people

  48. “Jacobus’ lawyer, Jay Butterman, vowed to appeal the decision. He said the ruling had effectively given “now President-elect Donald Trump a free pass to trample on the free speech rights of any critic.””

    I guess Butterman didn’t get the MEMO: Free speech is not a one-way street.

    As for the free speech and artistic expression of portraying policemen that risk their lives every day to serve the public as PIGS is protected too.

    So is portraying the protestors as monkeys.

    Both equally repugnant. Both demeaning of us as a human race.

    Keep that in mind lefties. Unlike Obama’s lawless one-way justice; in a Trump administration a society that values law and order, freedom of speech and artistic expression is also a two-way street, not simply a one-way street. If one group of people can be depicted as animals then the other group of people can be too. Just how low to the gutter do you want to drag the human race? Or perhaps everyone will just think it’s funny like you do about policemen depicted as pigs, and now others depicted as monkeys? I don’t think so.

    I would suggest we all cease to portray fellow human beings as animals all together. It is demeaning to us as a human race and doubly demeaning of the United States and its citizens. Animals don’t like it and neither does God who made us in His image.

    Liked by 1 person

  49. kinthenorthwest says:

    Anyone but me notice that the sexual allegation and their supposed cases have basically disappeared. It was all political crap.

    Liked by 4 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s